Importance of broad, equity-based approach to community engagement in supporting Ontario Health Teams and redesigning integrated care delivery
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Ontario Health Teams (OHTs) are a model of integrated care(IC) where primary care, hospitals, long-term care, home care, and social services work together with patient/caregiver advisors as one coordinated team. Our population health management focus requires that patients/caregivers and community members are recognized and supported as partners, and included in decision-making for redesigning integrated care delivery. An example of ETHP’s commitment to involving the community is the creation of a network of engaged patient/caregiver and community advisors to support our OHT and its partner organizations. Our Community Advisory Council (CAC) started in 2019 as a small group of five patients/caregivers who were brought together to help with the development of our OHT application. The small group of five quickly grew to 15 in our first year as OHT. As we sought to implement a broader community engagement approach, we shifted our recruitment focus to ETHP’s priority neighbourhoods and equity-deserving communities. We now have a community network of 60 active patient/caregiver advisors and 60 community health ambassadors supporting our IC work. Our engagement strategy focuses on involving patient and caregiver advisors in strategic planning and service co-design. Having supportive leadership and accountability has enabled our success. Our leadership team proactively identifies opportunities to involve the community in all aspects of our work. We try to incorporate patient/caregiver input in multiple ways, including interviews, surveys, and focus groups. However, we see the most value in involving patients/caregivers in ETHP committees’s work and creating dedicated advisory councils. Using this approach to engagement, we have created five additional advisory councils – two councils in the Thorncliffe Park and Taylor Massey priority neighbourhoods, a caregiver advisory group, and two youth advisory councils. Dedicated community advisory bodies comprised of members who are representative of the community provide a platform for a broader, more diverse range of perspectives. This approach to engagement (working at the Empowerment end of the engagement spectrum) has also resulted in various community-led initiatives. Our ETHP’s biannual planning sessions are proudly hosted by the community. The last session in July 2023 drew 160 participants, more than 40 of whom were community members. Similarly, in one of our workstreams, ETHP’s caregiver advisory group co-designed a series of 20 animated instructional videos (https://www.woodgreen.org/caregivers) to help patients and caregivers navigate the healthcare system. These are some examples of the successful partnership between ETHP and our patient/caregiver advisors. Having robust engagement is particularly important for IC models like the OHTs which are tasked with meeting the needs of a broader population. Since its inception, ETHP’s advisory network is increasingly recognized as a resource for ETHP and its many partner organizations. The streamlined engagement processes and the ease of access to this large and diverse network of advisors have enabled ETHP to improve its delivery of programs and services to meet the needs of our East Toronto community. This work would not be possible without the dedication of our committed advisors who collectively contribute numerous volunteer hours of their time to bring to the table the patient/caregiver voice.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,051 | 0,046 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,027 | 0,017 |
| Communication savante | 0,017 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,028 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».